Lots of good comments here. I think there’s many reasons, but AI in general is being quite hated on. It’s sad to me - pre-GPT I literally researched how AI can be used to help people be more creative and support human workflows, but our pipelines around the AI are lacking right now. As for the hate, here’s a few perspectives:

• Training data is questionable/debatable ethics,
• Amateur programmers don’t build up the same “code muscle memory”,
• It’s being treated as a sole author (generate all of this code for me) instead of like a ping-pong pair programmer,
• The time saved writing code isn’t being used to review and test the code more carefully than it was before,
• The AI is being used for problem solving, where it’s not ideal, as opposed to code-from-spec where it’s much better,
• Non-Local AI is scraping your (often confidential) data,
• Environmental impact of the use of massive remote LLMs,
• Can be used (according to execs, anyways) to replace entry level developers,
• Devs can have too much faith in the output because they have weak code review skills compared to their code writing skills,
• New programmers can bypass their learning and get an unrealistic perspective of their understanding; this one is most egregious to me as a CS professor, where students and new programmers often think the final answer is what’s important and don’t see the skills they strengthen along the way to the answer.

I like coding with local LLMs and asking occasional questions to larger ones, but the code on larger code bases (with these small, local models) is often pretty non-sensical, but improves with the right approach. Provide it documented functions, examples of a strong and consistent code style, write your test cases in advance so you can verify the outputs, use it as an extension of IDE capabilities (like generating repetitive lines) rather than replacing your problem solving.

I think there is a lot of reasons to hate on it, but I think it’s because the reasons to use it effectively are still being figured out.

Some of my academic colleagues still hate IDEs because tab completion, fast compilers, in-line documentation, and automated code linting (to them) means you don’t really need to know anything or follow any good practices, your editor will do it all for you, so you should just use vim or notepad. It’ll take time to adopt and adapt.

Everything changed when I found the most understanding teachers at the end of my school. I switched schools and had a teacher recognize I was smart and bored and distracted, and she tested me out of the classes and let me spend my time on other random things that were tangentially related and still work with the other students. Game changer compared to where I was where I’d get deductions for doing problems early or reading ahead.

The point on the way to many interests and things, and loving yourself beyond the meds, very important! I found o was regulating myself too much for the first while after diagnosing, and the most relaxation wasn’t what people might typically find relaxing, it was letting the (healthy enough) chaos flow in a safer environment than I was previously prepared to setup.

100%. Great way of putting it. I bounce back forth on occasion, but the trend line is always toward accepting that old part of me, and realizing it’s okay to move on because it’s a very closed chapter that’s been outstaying its welcome. Like any death, you still have those same neural patterns, and they’re slowly getting overwritten, and it’s confusing and disorienting when your muscle memory reaches for something and it’s not there.

It’s extra confusing when what’s reached for is that feeling of not grabbing anything, but you do. When you’ve been falling for decades the ground feels weird for a while when you land.

Hah, yeah, I’m sure I could have taken time to phrase it better.

I definitely feel like a big part of what I’ve grieved is the childhood that I never had, moreso than the future I won’t. It was a big relief, and I felt like I could do well and cut myself slack. I’m just trying to do the same with past me; cut myself that slack, give my past self that love and understanding now that I didn’t get then, accept it was a brutal time, and that it was unfair, but that I’ve grown and learned and stopped rejecting that person was me, and we’re doing all right.

I do think stigma is a part, both your expectations of others and the expectations on yourself. I had a psychiatrist tell me years before my diagnosis that I was “too successful” for ADHD and that pretty much derailed the acceptance for a long time, heh.

Absolutely! Important to recognize you’re not “weird” for not going through this, sometimes it just aligns so well you’re already prepped for it.

I agree to an extent, but also that the parents need to take time to understand how to “gas them up” appropriately. It’s not everyone’s case, but it became very apparent to me when I was young that my parents would cheer me on over anything, and never take any time to learn about the things they were cheering me on over, and that led to disbelieving pretty much any positive feedback from anyone long-term. The only feedback of substance growing up was the very rare negative feedback, because they would only pull it out when they understood it enough to know it needed improving. That, and emphasizing their efforts as the thing to cheer on, not just the end results.

I’ve learned to work through that, and maybe it goes without saying for most people, but being a genuine and substantive cheerleader is important.

I know this is in response to a post saying your ADHD is not other people’s ADHD, but I’m pretty sure your ADHD is my ADHD.

Message not clear; some man in the mirror is now telling me to change my ways, and now they’re angry and crying and it’s making me uncomfortable and feel alone. The man in the mirror said the world would be a better place if I changed, but why can’t they change? After all, they sure don’t seem like a good person, you can see it in their face. Disgusting.

Maybe the discomfort of looking at the person on the other side of the mirror, with their hate, sadness, and confusion, is part of what fuels their hatred.

As someone who researched AI pre-GPT to enhance human creativity and aid in creative workflows, it’s sad for me to see the direction it’s been marketed, but not surprised. I’m personally excited by the tech because I personally see a really positive place for it where the data usage is arguably justified, but we either need to break through the current applications of it which seems more aimed at stock prices and wow-factoring the public instead of using them for what they’re best at.

The whole exciting part of these was that it could convert unstructured inputs into natural language and structured outputs. Translation tasks (broad definition of translation), extracting key data points in unstructured data, language tasks. It’s outstanding for the NLP tasks we struggled with previously, and these tasks are highly transformative or any inputs, it purely relies on structural patterns. I think few people would argue NLP tasks are infringing on the copyright owner.

But I can at least see how moving the direction toward (particularly with MoE approaches) using Q&A data to support generating Q&A outputs, media data to support generating media outputs, using code data to support generating code, this moves toward the territory of affecting sales and using someone’s IP to compete against them. From a technical perspective, I understand how LLMs are not really copying, but the way they are marketed and tuned seems to be more and more intended to use people’s data to compete against them, which is dubious at best.

Not to fully argue against your point, but I do want to push back on the citations bit. Given the way an LLM is trained, it’s not really close to equivalent to me citing papers researched for a paper. That would be more akin to asking me to cite every piece of written or verbal media I’ve ever encountered as they all contributed in some small way to way that the words were formulated here.

Now, if specific data were injected into the prompt, or maybe if it was fine-tuned on a small subset of highly specific data, I would agree those should be cited as they are being accessed more verbatim. The whole “magic” of LLMs was that it needed to cross a threshold of data, combined with the attentional mechanism, and then the network was pretty suddenly able to maintain coherent sentences structure. It was only with loads of varied data from many different sources that this really emerged.

Mainly learning that I did, in fact, have ADHD, Then: medication (Vyvanse); drastically reducing or cutting weed, alcohol, and caffeine; therapy to help deal with childhood issues (which exacerbate symptoms); taking time away from work to start recovering from ADHD-driven burnout and building some structures to support my ADHD in the workplace.

Systems to externalize things. I’ve accepted that if I don’t see something, it isn’t happening, so I try to arrange and organize things in a way that it’s physically out in the world for me. Digital doesn’t work extremely well for me for the most part, except for some work things where it’s all in one place, because digital disappears from existence when the screen turns off.

I hate it, but regular exercise, eating more healthy, and the nights where I can actually sleep are probably the biggest factors in whether I have a good day or not. Not that knowing that is enough, of course.

Oh, and just generally learning what my weaknesses are. I’m still hugely struggling with ADHD overall, but knowing the big weaknesses helps. It’s not about doing what’s easy, it’s about facing what’s hard head-on and accepting it sucks, but you have to go on.

• I struggle with transitioning, so random text messages or having to sporadically decide to move from Task A to Task B is hard/impossible, so I have scheduled socializing and build in transition “rituals” like going for a walk, having lights and TV automatically turn off at set times,
• I get stuck on tasks, so hard rules like “Under no circumstances can you do this after X time” are vital to live by, when you can,
• I don’t notice bodily needs, so practicing meditation and having regular reminders to check-in on myself help to make sure I’ve eaten / drank water / walked around and generally am not hurting my body with whatever weird way I’m sitting,
• I’m terrible with detail-oriented work, so I have workflows specifically designed to reduce the amount of detail-oriented work I need to do,
• I binge a ton of work in short periods and rest for periods, so I moved my career toward flexible scheduling to allow for this, with enough accountability to have deadlines I can’t violate.

I’ll say, one thing that helped me here was starting to see the “depth in the breadth”, so to speak, and recognizing this jumping around for what it was. A lot of novelty seeking and bouncing between hobbies to avoid conscious regulating, which was tiring.

Now, in things that I consider important, I try to find the novelty and breadth that comes with sticking to it for a long time - stare at a hobby / occupation long enough to see the big world inside of it and realize it’s more than you can take in and take time to put up some blinders so you can hone in there and see it as lots of cool novel things within a smaller space.

Also, realizing that bouncing around to all kinds of things… well, that’s my form of relaxing. If I’m totally depleted, chances are what I need isn’t to sit in one place and “rest”, or to focus on one thing, it’s to schedule time to completely not focus on one thing and allow myself to bounce all over the place and do whatever feels good (within responsible limits). It’s usually a chaotic mess that amounts to no long-term benefit, but it’s much more resting that trying to relax. Trying was the problem, after all.

Yeah! Not beating yourself up over this is really important, same with not overthinking it. Some days are hard, some are less hard, some, I’ve heard, are easy.

Some days the best progress/discipline is noticing it’s a day where you need your own compassion to admit you need to let yourself off the hook for a bit.

It’s a good start to a long path :) I’m not a doctor of medicine, and not medical advice, but I know it was really helpful for me when I started recognizing I was on a path to helping myself, not the ADHD, not the trauma, not whatever else it may be diagnosed as, but me, my experiences, my patterns, my brain.

The labels can be helpful for seeing, noticing, understanding, approaching, and getting medical support where needed, but ultimately it’s great that the symptoms were validated, and congrats on taking the steps! It’s hard work to identify the need, hard work to reach out and get support, and it means you’re very likely on a good path.

I think he’s basically saying that it’s racist to “artificially” integrate communities, because (I think he’s saying) if they need to be integrated, then that’s the same as saying that black folks are necessarily inferior. I don’t think he’s trying to say they’re inferior, but that laws forcing integration are based on that assumption. So he can be well educated and successful because he isn’t inherently inferior, therefore there is no need for forced integration.

… Which is such a weird stretch of naturalism in a direction I wasn’t ready for. Naturalist BS is usually, “X deserves fewer rights because they are naturally inferior”, whereas this is “We should ignore historical circumstances because X is not naturally inferior”.

Start a game of monopoly after three other players have already gone around the board 10 times and created lots of rules explicitly preventing you from playing how they did and see how much the argument of “well, to give you any kind of advantage here would just be stating you’re inferior, and we can’t do that.”

Man probably got angry at his golf handicap making him feel inferior and took things too far. Among other things.

Yeah, I may be wrong but I think it usually comes down to a very specific kind of precision needed. It’s not meant to be hostile, I think, but meant to provide a domain-specific explanation clearly to those who need to interpret it in a specific way. In law, specific jargon infers very specific behaviour, so it’s meant to be precise in its own way (not a law major, can’t say for sure), but it can seem completely meaningless if you aren’t prepped for it.

Same thing in other fields. I had a professor who was very pedantic about {braces} vs [brackets] vs (parentheses), and it seemed totally unnecessary to be so corrective in discussions, but when explaining where things went wrong with a student’s work it was vital to be able to quickly differentiate them in their work so they could review the right areas or understand things faster during a lecture later down the line.

But that noise takes longer to teach through, so if it is important, it needs it’s own time to learn, and it will make it inaccessible to anyone who didn’t get that time to learn and digest it.